Methinks this would be what some call plausible deniability [wikipedia.org].

The simpler is the lie, the more people believe it. The net result of faking the libel than debunking it is always negative.

I don't have time to get mad. American Idol's on.

Anytime energy, climate, guns, oil, taxes, nuclear, smoking, pesticides, pharmaceuticals or evolution gets mentioned you can expect to see the sock puppets come out.

From both sides.

an insurance company, whose sole purpose is profit, having the power to deny you lifesaving treatment based on your calculated "worth" is better?

Insurance companies do not care how much you are worth. All they care about is pre-existing conditions.

And if you think about it anything else is insane. Insurance is for spreading around costs between a large number of people for events that happen to a few. But if you are already a person with an expensive illness to treat you are 100% sure to be only a drain on the system instead of having a probability of helping to support others.

Just like forcing banks to take on loans from people who cannot pay them back, forcing insurance companies to take people who only take from the system and cannot give will lead to collapse as well.

The insurance system is still superior though because you are allowed to choose your level of risk, and there will always be a public system to fall back on for last resort for those that did not chose insurance. At worst you end up in the same situation you would have been in with a public health plan, government panels deciding who gets treatment.

Yeah, because ONLY terrorists scream and holler about their rights -- and GOOD CITIZENS capitulate.

What you've just described is a situation where the TSA security theater is merely there to make sure you bend over and say; "thank you sir."

Security doesn't have shit to do with people making jokes, or making a fuss. The guy who want's to mess you up will stay under the radar and be the most polite person up until the moment of truth.

In short, don't argue with the cop unless you're prepared for the consequences. -- Right, because we should all have consequences because we demand a Government and Security system that respects us.

Which party is trying to enact consumer protection laws, regulations to protect home buyers, regulations to reign in bank fraud?
Which party passes laws protecting the rights of women and minorities or makes environmental protection a priority?
I could go on and on, listing substantial policy differences between the Democratic and Republican parties.

I accept that both parties want power, but it seems like only one party even pretends to have a token interest in using the least bit of that power to protect my interests in even the most minimal of ways.

1) So once someone contracts an expensive illness they are "a drain on the system" and they should die. I'll tell my grandfather that; No, better I'll put him on an iceberg and push him off into the sea. That's how the Inuit used to handle 'a drain on the system'.

2) What is this public system to fall back on for a last resort? I guess you are not in The USA because we have no system of last resort here. You get sick, you go bankrupt, then you die. That's how our politicians want it, that's how we want it, and that's how God wants it.

Those aren't your interests. All you are seeing is the futures of Orwell and Huxley fighting it out in real time.

One comes via fear, force and ignorance, the other comes with a spoonful of sugar and ignorance. The problem is, they are both well on their way to becoming real.

Liberty will be just as dead if killed through violent oppression (Orwell) or diabetic shock (Huxley).

I'll just add to this a little story I heard. A certain military base did electronics work for a large section of the US. A different branch of the military was paying a private contractor almost 100 grand a pop to repair modules they were sold for a vehicle. Said modules almost never worked. A maintenance tech at the base was asked by this other branch to look into it, since they'd worked on similiar parts in the past. Long story short, he was able to do the same repair for 1/20th the cost, and after being returned to the other branch it managed to work for multiple times as long as the 'manufacturer repaired' modules.

How did this get handled by the military? The base in question was shut down during the cutbacks 10ish years ago, and turned into a bunch of commercial buildings. The equipment in question got stuck being sent back to the manufacturer under their repair prices which cost 100 grand and often didn't return repaired.

While I agree we wouldn't want the military side of things to rest on their laurels, they *USED* to have a *LOT* of brilliant personnel, lifers willing to work day in and day out to make stuff work and make the repair of it an artform. And you know what we've done? 'Retired' them, outsourced the work to the 'lowest common denominator', who due to their quest for maximum profitability are fully inclined to overcharge and underperform, and thanks to the ever dwindling supply of highly technical maintenance engineers and the common knowledgebase among them, the commercial sector has more and more power in contract negotiations because they don't have competition (Honestly given the consolidation in military suppliers, combined with reduction in military maintenance facilities) they can charge what they want and if there's not someone else you can take it to when it breaks, you're pretty much stuck paying what they'll offer.

Besides, what the "any of the universal coverage systems used in all the other OECD nations would reduce our freedom!" arguments all seem to ignore is that most people aren't especially free to pick their health insurance or much of anything else about their health care experience. Most get nothing, awful catastrophic-only insurance (and you better believe they'll fight tooth and nail not to pay for anything at all if something bad does happen, leaving you to duke it out with both them and the hospitals, who don't give a shit and will gladly go after you if the insurance companies drag their feet, all while you're sick), or, in the best case, whatever insurance that their job supplies.

There really aren't enough people getting meaningful choices out of our system for it to be a sensible argument against single-payer or, say, a Swiss-style system, especially considering that most who do have choices under the US system would still have choices under most others--even in the UK with its more-nationalized-than-most health care system you can pay for private care and insurance, on top of the basic care that everyone gets.

A slim minority of edge cases might get left out, but almost everyone would see no effective decrease in "freedom" under most UHC systems. It's a 100% bullshit argument but, in my experience, is the one that's gotten the most traction, alongside general (and also bullshit) fear mongering about waiting lists and such. I really don't understand what's going on in people's heads when they throw this out, and they're on their employer's insurance--in those cases they don't seem to me to have a dog in the "freedom" fight, except in some hypothetical abstract way that will never have any practical meaning to them.

Most people don't have any more say in their health care now than they would under a universal system, and we pay more, and we leave lots of people without coverage, and our system is a huge burden on small businesses, entrepreneurs, and independent contractors. What the goddamn hell is worth defending about it?